RAMESWAR GOENKA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE seven writ applications are taken up together as the points involved therein are common. It is prayed that the respondents, namely, the Income-tax Officer, "A" Ward, Shillong, and others, should be called upon to forbear from giving effect to the impugned notices as also the impugned order dated March 31, 1962, passed by the respondent No. 1. It is also prayed that the order dated May 4, 1966, passed on appeal by the respondent No. 1 should not be given effect to. We shall mainly refer to the facts of the case stated in Civil Rule No. 357/65, as they are common to all the rest of the cases. The assessment years involved are 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54.

(2.) THERE is a Hindu undivided family under the name of Ganeshdas Sreeram which originally owned all the businesses of the family and carried on the same as such, till the assessment year 1946-47. THEREafter, there was partial partition in the year 2003, Ramnavami, corresponding to 1946, in respect of the business carried on and some movable properties owned by the Hindu undivided family. With respect to these divided businesses, a partnership was formed under the instrument of partnership dated September 19, 1947, consisting of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and their late father, Jivan Ram Goenka. On the death of Jivan Ram Goenka on February 20, 1950, a fresh deed of partnership dated July 26, 1950, was executed and the petitioner No. 5, the mother of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, was taken in as a partner in place of Jivan Ram Goenka. THEREafter, another partnership deed was executed on May 18, 1954, on attainment of majority of a minor by the name of Sankarlal Goenka. The partnership firm applied for registration under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the "old Act", for the assessment year 1947-48 in the form prescribed giving all necessary particulars as required. The Income-tax Officer by his order dated February 14, 1952, rejected the application for registration of the firm, but, on appeal, his order was set aside and registration was granted to the firm by the appellate officer's order dated May 14, 1952, in consequence whereof, the assessment for the year 1947-48 was made in the hands of the partnership firm and separate assessment was made with regard to the properties in the hands of the Hindu undivided family so far as other income of this family was concerned. This fact has not been denied by the department. For all subsequent years, renewal of registration was duly granted and assessments were made in the hands of the partnership firm and taxes so assessed were duly paid. This fact has also not been denied.

(3.) UPON these facts, the aforesaid orders of cancellation of registration and issue of notices under Section 148 of the Act have been challenged.